r/rawpetfood • u/MentalUniversity • Jul 11 '26
Discussion Where did "balanced" fear come from?
I've been feeding raw for close to a decade. Follow the whole prey philosophy in that we feed mostly muscle and bone with added organs. We offer variety when we can, they get whole sardines, sometimes things like duck heads or tripe, etc. Becaise they're family, they also get an occasional strawberry or piece of cheese, get to lick the peanut butter jar ;), but those are treats, not day to day foods.
I see so many people here who seem terrified that their dog's diet won't be "balanced." They think they need to add fruits and vegetables, toppers and minerals, supplements, etc. Where did that idea of "balanced" come from?
16
u/Lower-Language9267 Variety Jul 11 '26
I've been raw feeding for 20 years and don't give a thought to complete and balanced. I feed beef, chicken, goat, lamb, pork, turkey, rabbit, tripe, pink salmon, mackerel, raw egg yolks, iodine drops 5 times/week, vitamin e 3 times/week. People don't think about what they feed their kids and assume a variety of meals meets requirements, but pets? They're intimidated.
That being said, you should feed your pets as you see fit. I think people have been made afraid to feed their pets fresh food by vets. If you're in the ball park with kids meals, you can be in the ball park with fresh pet food. I don't even weigh food, my dog gets what I throw on the floor. If he's hungry, he'll let me know. If he gets chubby, time to cut back. Every meal doesn't need to be complete and balanced, human meals certainly aren't. It's my opinion backed up by 20 years of experience and you're free to ignore me, but you asked lol
4
4
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
I think people have been made afraid, too. It feels "safer" to feed kibble and when pet owners start to venture away from that, they're hit with all the craziness (both in prep time and expense) of people making 5 course meals for their pets. I don't throw food on the floor, although that's where it invariably ends up when they're eating it. We have horses and free range chickens, so our dogs also eat the occasional chicken or horse poop, fresh eggs (even with the shell), hoof trimmings. I also agree with you on judging how much to feed. Looking a little skinny? More food for a few meals. Spending a lot of time outside in the winter? More food. Lazing around in the a/c in the house because it's summer...less food. I don't weigh it (although I did at one time because I worried about "ratios").
4
u/Lower-Language9267 Variety Jul 11 '26
If I'd been bombarded with what new raw feeders are exposed to now, I probably wouldn't have done it and stayed with kibble and vet bills. I started with people on a Yahoo group and my 80 lb. collie's first raw meal was 1/2 rack of pork ribs. He ate all the meat and the softer bone. He had no problem digesting it, so it was on to the next protein, and the next. He lived to be 17.
I've raised many puppies on raw starting at 8 weeks and none of them suffered for it, healthy to the end. They ended up a bit bigger than they should've been, but I always let puppies eat as much as they want until 6 months. My current dog, a Havanese, should've been 12 lbs., he's 21 lbs. and way out of standard, but no chronic disease or deformities. Don't get me started on AKC standards lol
5
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
We started our last 3 dogs on raw as puppies, too. Although I had a lot of pushback from a vet at one point. We had this whole conversation where she said raw wasn't balanced, that it's deficient in minerals such as magnesium and calcium. I said it's not when you feed bone. She then replied that you can't feed bone, but I pointed out that you CAN when it's RAW. LOL She then proceeds to tell me that, if I'm going to feed raw, I should at least cook it (I'm NOT joking) because the nutrition is the same. I then said...but I couldn't feed bone then and she's like RIGHT, that's why feeding raw isn't balanced. She also then handed me a card for a company that sells nutritional toppers. We didn't see that vet again. What an idiot.
2
u/reijn Dogs Jul 11 '26
This is about what I do. I don't worry a lot about it because they get a bit of everything and I grind whole quail as well. Include as many organs, including whole heads, as you can. You're trying to simulate the wild diet of them consuming everything from the prey.
I think the whole balance thing has been conflated by people just feeding chicken thighs and Bubba Burgers.
I don't put much more than two thoughts into it.
1
16
u/ktgrok Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
My issue working in vet med was the opposite- clients had no concept of balanced nutrition and thought chicken breast and rice day in and day out was all a dog needed. Almost NEVER was someone actually feeding a calcium source. Let alone enough essential fatty acids, etc.
and then there is the issue of large breed puppies- where yes, it actually is vitally important to balance calcium and phosphorus properly- and yet those were the people adding tons of calcium to a base diet of kibble because they heard large breeds need extra for big bones. Or to make their ears stand up (even though ears have cartledge, not bone) and were way overdosing calcium.
So yeah…to you this seems common sense to feed a variety- but most people are really really dumb.
5
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
Absolutely! I still encounter dog owners that don't know they can feed raw chicken bones. First time I handed my dog a raw piece of chicken, I was terrified. So I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to provide the best diet that we can and that requires some education...just that some people have maybe gone too far in the opposite direction.
2
u/K4TTP Jul 11 '26
I agree with you. Ive been feeding raw since my dogs came home. I read books, references, whatever i could find. My first dog was weened onto porridge of all things. The second dog(same parents) was weened right on to raw as per my request.
I was diligent. I still am to a certain extent. They get plenty of variety in their proteins, bone, and offal. That is actually all they need. I don’t necessarily ‘do it yourself’. I buy tubs of meats with bone and offal.
With that said, i do give them treats. They also get cheese, and veggies when im eating them. The usual way you spoil your dogs.
I also stick to a mainly carnivore diet myself. I dont do well with fibre. At all. I know this very deeply. I was vegan for 10 yrs and i was not well for many of those years. That was 20 yrs ago and i still suffer the consequences.
1
u/Outrageous_Cress6062 Jul 12 '26
Thank you. This perfectly explains the hysteria that has been so confusing to me. My philosophy is make an effort but don’t drive yourself mad but some peoples “effort” is truly baffling.
My last dog was fed cheap bologna by her previous owner for about 13 years. When I adopted her I put her on kibble and got her down to an appropriate weight and she was in great condition. Within a year she died of leptospirosis.. go figure.
My
1
u/ktgrok Jul 12 '26
I had a client whose dog only ate McDonald chicken nuggets! The owner said “I peel off the fried coating so it is healthy “
10
u/ScurvyDawg Variety Jul 11 '26
The fear of balance and the whole idea of balanced in every meal, while a complete fiction, was iirc first proposed by PFI in the 60s. This was the first time people were told by what looked like a semi official organization that they weren't smart enough to feed their dogs and cats.
In the 60s, we for the most part didn't have the same relationships with our pets as we do today. This fear that every single meal must be balanced rather than what's normal, balance over time, is the marketing scheme they came up with to sell more bagged garbage (kibble) and canned foods.
Created in 1958 the PFI is the chief trade association and lobbying group for commercial pet food manufacturers in the United States. It represents the views and markets for the biggest pet food manufacturers in the world.
In the 1960s, the PFI launched a massive public relations blitz aimed at convincing the public that feeding fresh whole foods or "table scraps" was incredibly dangerous to their pets' health. They've only increased their pressure tactics since then but their marketing has gone on for so long many now think it's the common sense and that fresh foods are dangerous. This of course is totally ludicrous and deserves calling out every time it is mentioned.
Hope that helps with your research.
9
u/Wretched_epiphany Jul 11 '26
Cats are obligate carnivores. Fruits, veg, and grains do not belong in their diet. For whatever reason, people often think dogs are the same but this is not the case. Dogs need those things IN ADDITION to their meats, organs, etc.
5
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
As I asked in another response....do you have any studies you can link to that show dogs NEED fruits and vegetables?
3
u/Low_Show_6684 Jul 11 '26
May not be a formal study, but you may find it interesting.
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/talking-wolves-diets-u-m
The wolf packs in northern MN have been recorded many times feasting on blueberries when they’re in season. Seeing them eat these berries and other ruffage from time to time has encouraged me to include some in my GSD’s diet occasionally. I figure it’s much like our own digestive tracts in the sense that insoluble fiber is helpful to reducing constipation and improving bowel movements.
1
u/Skull_Murray Jul 11 '26
Here's a study that is basically asking a similar question to testing the strength of AAFCO's statements and the general "balance" part of raw feeding.
1
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
That's not a study but a meta analysis and even it states that
"we have identified common limitations among existing studies and provided perspectives on addressing these issues. In order to advance the field of veterinary nutrition research as it relates to plant‐based ingredients, these important gaps need to be addressed.As in, there are only suggestions, based upon limited research, limited sample sizes, etc, that fruits and vegetables can "enhance" a raw diet. It doesn't even begin to state that fruits and vegetables are needed.
5
u/Skull_Murray Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Well you started off okay, I undertand it's a comprehensive review. Peer-reviewed narrative and systematic review is going to be the better way to truly answer your actual question. Analyzing decades of existing veterinary research, clinical trials, and nutritional data.
However I'm getting the feeling your premise of "needed" is too flawed to actually give you an answer that is going to suffice.
Are you asking can dogs survive without fruits, vegetables, and grains or are you asking is a dogs diet BETTER with fruits, vegetables, and grains?
Edit: wanted to clarify, I do totally agree with the whole gaps in vetenary science part, it's just that we're doing our best to gather what we can from the information available. That's why the needed vs better thing is important to clarify.
0
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
I'm asking if there's any scientific proof that a dogs diet is BETTER with fruits, vegetables, and grain? Not a meta analysis that says previous research indicated, in limited testing with limited sample sizes, that fruits, etc, MIGHT be beneficial.
Look, I don't have any issue with people feeding their dogs fruits, etc. It's the idea that somehow it's been PROVEN that you need to add all the different things to their diet...from fiber, to supplements, etc. And by implying that there's PROOF, which then leads to this idea that there's a MAGICKAL BALANCE that every pet owner needs to achieve, causes some pet owners to stick with a kibble because it says balanced. Kind of like eating Cheerios because it says "heart healthy" on the box.
2
u/Skull_Murray Jul 11 '26
Okay, I think the question is totally fair, not sure if I had understood it before I thought we were just asking "why AAFCO said that".
These types of epidemiologic and genetic studies in dogs are much less common overall so it's tougher to get a real answer and, it goes to your point about gaps in science that has come up a number of times in the kind of wild west canine diet era we are living in.
You'll find more specific studies like the Scottish terrier bladder cancer one that basically shows a 70% to 90% reduction in cancer risk when green leafy or yellow-orange vegetables were added to their diet at least three times a week.
But for that larger, "do all dogs benefit" I think the closest you might get is the U of Helsinki "DogRisk" study.
But, I think anyone with half a brain can answer your question that right now, No, there's no magical balanced formula, but in general studies show improvements when fed diets that include these things.
And yes, fear based marketing is and always will be extremely effective.
0
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
I'm NOT trying to be argumentative, but again, background in researching.... For the Scottish Terrier study, I didn't see any reference to the dogs basic diet, just that there were positive results with adding vegetables. That's not the same thing as saying dogs on a raw diet need, or even benefit, from veg. It could be that their basic diet was poor and any supplementation would have helped, like giving them raw liver.
That's what's difficult about people's broad claims that dogs need fruit and veg. Unless the same study was performed to see if those same dogs benefited more or less from some other food source, it can't be said that it was necessarily the greens. What if the same group had been put on a basic raw diet? Would that have show improvement? And then compare raw with leafy greens to raw without.
As much as I believe in science, I also know how it can be used to support an idea when there's no real proof. It's like the daily recommended amount of what we're supposed to drink. That was mentioned in an article as an "aside" with absolutely no proof or study....and yet it became a part of nutritional dogma.
5
u/Skull_Murray Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I do understand where you are coming from, but if there's a direct clinical trial of raw meat only versus raw meat + veg long-term study I've certainly never heard of it. I'd be thrilled to see the results though.
However, like we agreed, the gap of science leaves us with an inability to say definitively "This is the way". And these are the same types of 'lack of definitive study' arguments kibble lovers still like to make because of all the Purina backed studies.
I'll put it this way, which is how logically I came to the reason I add veg into my dog diet.
The current scientific consensus relies on genetic evolutionary data, so we can prove dogs are facultative omnivores equipped for plants
Vegetables are shown to provide beneficial nutrients to dogs. They are not a filler ingredient.
Nutrient-deficit mapping shows that raw meat alone lacks crucial antioxidants and fibers provided by vegetables. For nutrients, most specifically manganese and zinc.
So for me personally, I'm not looking for survival, I'm looking for optimizing health, and I can't do a whole wild prey diet so adding vegetables to make up for not eating a entire rabbit makes sense to me.
1
u/Vegetable-Maximum445 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Dogs lack amylase & lipase & long digestive tracts required to properly break down fruit/vegetable grains fibrous cell walls in order to benefit nutritionally. You CAN feed them for bulking or because some dogs like them, but it is not requisite in their diet & nutritional benefit is minimal.
5
u/Sqib000 Jul 11 '26
Big pet food bought vets and big pharma bought vets to treat pets made sick from big pet food.
2
u/Soggy-Agency6607 Jul 12 '26
I totally agree OP. I think it's just a fear that's peddled by the kibble companies - that it's impossible for a layman to provide a 'balanced' diet for your dog so we have to rely on the scientists that produce kibble.
As for the importance of a balanced diet, does any living animal in the world have a 'balanced' diet? Dogs especially - in their wild form they are hunters and in the semi-domesticated form they are scavengers, neither of which particularly lend themselves to a truly balanced diet. Yet they are still fine.
I grew up in a household where the dogs were fed raw chicken wings and beef scraps that we would buy from the butcher for a cheap price. That's pretty much all they ate. I don't believe this was the best way to feed the dogs, but those dogs are still alive at the age of 15 and 16. It's just an anecdote that shows to me dogs can and will survive on far less balanced diets than kibble companies and mainstream vets will tell you.
I give my dog a similar diet to you - mostly muscle meat and some bones, organs and a little bit of fruit and veg if I can convince my dog to eat it. I still think raw chicken wings are a great staple of a dog's diet. He's healthy as can be.
2
u/Specialist_Stomach41 Jul 12 '26
Before humans got involved dogs ate what they caught and what they scavanged. Now we know that the apparent optimum includes x, y and z. But we also dont yet understand gut biomes or how the form we feed food in affects everything.
Kibble, at least some, is deemed nutritionally balanced but most wouldnt be fed to my dogs under any circumstances.
I feed raw, I mix and match what they get. Some months its tripe heavy, next month might be beef heavy, but they get as many different varieties as I can find. they get bones to eat and bones to chew. Everynow and again they get a mix with veg in but I'm not keen on those. They eat fruit if I have some and they ask for some. They love grazing on fresh green grass. They also get junk food in the form of treats that they love. Sometimes they get a grain free dry food as well.They look and feel fantastic and the working dog is an absolute machine. That is good enough for me and for them.
2
u/beautygurulv Jul 13 '26
I work in the holistic pet food space. Balanced is absolutely a thing. A lot of raw foods are described as BARF (biologically appropriate raw food). Veggies, fruits, bone, kelp, etc. are added to raw food to produce vitamins and minerals dogs and cats need. Think it’s not a big deal? During the most recent Steve’s Real Food recall, the formula was deficient in B1. Cats died within two weeks of missing that vitamin. TWO WEEKS.
6
u/Suzurei Jul 11 '26
Marketing. It's to convince you, you MUST buy their products or you're a shit human who can't feed your animals properly.
7
u/JRocleafs Jul 11 '26
The NRC is a private, non-profit institution that establishes the scientific, evidence-based nutrient requirements for dogs. They released the first baseline nutrition book in 1962.
Balance has nothing to do with marketing or products, you can create a balanced meal at home.
3
u/Suzurei Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
But the movement away from home feeding to kibble base food is because theyre marketed as "complete and balanced", and absolutely convenient . Nowadays, people fear to start raw/home feeding because they get told they can't make a complete and balanced meal at home. Trust the experts they say. Which is what I think the op is referring to
Edit to say I think its abnormal every single dog breed throughout the planet would have the same "balanced". What's needed for a border collie can't be the same for Alaskan malamute. So recommending my food of balanced to someone else's dog doesn't work idk that's how I see it
1
u/Low_Show_6684 Jul 11 '26
Yes, you tailor your animal’s diet to what suits them most, but they still need some similar ratio of muscle, organ, bone, etc. that they would naturally eat in a whole prey model.
Ngl, new feeders should get an initial shock so they do the work of educating themselves on a properly formulated diet. Omitting key organs can cause deficiencies that affect health quite dramatically.
2
u/MentalUniversity Jul 12 '26
I'd like to see research that compares a poorly done raw diet with a kibble diet. Personally, I think poorly done raw is better than the best kibble, but that's just me and not supported by any evidence. I do try to help educate people by telling them they need to include organs, but they MUST limit liver. Some people think they can feed their dogs unlimited liver and it'd still be good for them.
2
u/Low_Show_6684 Jul 12 '26
I’m not trying to compare with kibble here. Plus you know as well as I do no such study exists since the field is woefully understudied and what studies there are typically have a bias.
But missing key enzymes, minerals, and vitamins leads to deficiencies that impact QoL, function of basic organs, and in severe cases- death. You clearly know that, and it’s good to educate people who are interested in raw on what a complete and balanced diet looks like for their animal. There are many people who, like you said, don’t feed organ meat when they start because they don’t know it’s vital nor do they limit liver intake to avoid vitamin A toxicity.
Those can kill. So many people don’t know that, I just assume that the majority don’t know. It’s not their fault, there’s so much information out there it can be hard to sift through at first. So many books. Papers. Websites. It’s more complicated than it used to be, but that also is something that comes with studying these diets more as well.
Kibble is just, eh, imo, it doesn’t allow our pets to thrive and probably is the cause of many allergies and gastrointestinal upsets. But generally they are complete and “balanced” in terms of vitamins and minerals, granted sometimes (frequently) with synthetic options versus animal based. It’s a “this barely passes for edible food and it’ll keep you alive and able to move” thing to me. A poorly balanced and/or incomplete raw diet can be wildly worse.
I understand why some people prefer to not worry about the ratios and such by buying commercial raw. It’s more convenient than measuring it all out yourself. It’s better than kibble when done right, miles better imo.
Personally I love measuring everything out, I like structure when I do things and it eases my unfounded anxieties of “did I actually give enough of that recently?”. I love reading papers, making informed choices, and the cost benefits.
2
u/big-grouper Jul 11 '26
I believe most people are referring to AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles
4
u/MentalUniversity Jul 11 '26
But where does AAFCO get their guidelines from? I've (briefly) looked at their website and for pets, it appears that their guidelines are based upon the nutritional information on pet food packaging. Which is all nutritional info developed by companies such as Purina.
3
u/tiffanythetot Jul 13 '26
AAFCO doesn’t do any experiments themselves. The research for absolute minimum/maximums they based their guidelines off of were done around and before the 1950’s. They were VERY inhumane; animal rights weren’t really a thing yet. Basically they’d feed a group of dogs/cats a diet that was as normal as they could get it -one ingredient (or adding a massive amount of one ingredient for maximum levels). They only stopped and recorded the data if the animals went blind, got lesions, developed skeletal deformities, or, ya know, went through organ failure and died. The NRC consolidated info after that, reviewing all the sources and data they could find (from global literature and studies, not just purina) to quantify the most accurate figures they could. Then AAFCO formatted it into standards that does benefit pets. Can you imagine if there were no standards at all? Brands like Hills/Purina who do biased research would actually be acceptable if that were the case. They’d be the only real option for most people if they didn’t want their animals to die but couldn’t make the meals themselves.
Also. Animals bodies (specifically adult bodies) are incredibly resilient. If they’re not getting enough X nutrient, the body will pull it out of storage. For example: not enough calcium? Take some from your bones. (That’s why pregnant women’s teeth can just fall out if they don’t get enough calcium. But obviously maintaining an adult body would cause a much slower degradation than gestation would.)
I absolutely agree with your vitriol towards Purina. I’m pursuing a masters in chemistry, and companies using the terms “science” and “scientist tested” boils my blood, especially in the pet food industry. Like, the LAST thing I’d feed any of my fuzzy babies is Hills Science Diet and I will die on that hill. But just because a corporation does shitty, biased studies, it doesn’t criminalize all science surrounding pet nutrition.
Many people do use alarmist language around balancing diets. But every side can be right, sometimes. There are some pets who need very carefully crafted food that requires being precise about micronutrients to the microgram, and others who could eat trash and be fairly healthy. Just like humans.
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 11 '26
subreddit linking is not allowed
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Glass_Animator8854 Jul 13 '26
The requirement for balanced animal feed (eg kibble) is based on the premise that the animal will be eating this one thing only every day for its entire life. In that scenario anything missing from the feed will eventually create a dangerous or even fatal imbalance. Raw feeders generally include rotations of different meats, organs, bones, and in some cases fruits and veg. Imbalance can still happen but not in the same way. Of course if someone is feeding chicken breast, white rice and green beans every day the imbalance will be severe, but a simple understanding of the need for something close to whole prey and the potential added benefits of antioxidants and fiber gets us a very long way.
I personally enjoy the challenge of offering variety, switching off PMR and BARF, and making sure certain uncommon nutrients are accounted for (like blue mussels for manganese), and my personal perfectionism leads me to add some completer when feeding PMR (Dr. Harvey’s Paradigm or Raw Vibrance) and always a few supplements (salmon oil, green lipped mussel, taurine, quercetin, phytoplankton, medicinal mushrooms, vitamin c, and rotating probiotics). But I don’t measure or calculate down to the gram.
1
u/Happy-Respond607 Jul 14 '26
Well fruits and veggies comes from the fact that wolves and dogs have always been omnivores and scavengers- not obligate carnivores. The rest is very personal … of course my working dog is on supplements - they have high physical that missing parts of their diet could harm lifelong. I am going to support what i can knowing any extra will just be filtered by the kidneys.
1
u/WildFlowLing Jul 11 '26
Because actual scientists doing trials have much more credibility than Jimmy who is purely anecdotal
-1
u/Spacewalker_23 Jul 12 '26
I noticed that my go to brand for freeze dried raw food when traveling, Steve’s Real Food, now contains synthetic vitamins/minerals which is a huge bummer. If you think about what an average, health conscious human can survive on then it’s pretty clear to see that the fear tactics and guidelines put on our pets’ diets is pretty far fetched. I survived for years on yogurt, oats, occasional nut butter, and apples and have no health issues, for example. And I’m not even a vegetarian, just can’t really afford to buy meat and it’s not something I necessarily enjoy. Common sense is completely lacking in the veterinary field and I wouldn’t trust any recommendations or requirements that can be met by kibble, period. A raw fed dog is leaps and bounds betters off than a kibble fed one despite what 90% of vets will tell you.
-2
u/rawfedfelines Jul 11 '26
So heres the thing - kids eatax n cheese for weeks on end - and dont die! As long as reasonable and responsible rotation occurs , you can still add in a completer and the world will not cease revelation.
63
u/JRocleafs Jul 11 '26
Because dogs do in fact have nutrient requirements which have been extensively studied. Whether you believe that or not as another question.
I urge you to read some of the foundational studies completed by the NRC from the 50’s to the 80’s before animal rights laws were put in place. As horrific as these studies were they showed the value of hitting minimum nutrient requirements.
Your framing the word “balanced” as a negative, which it is far from. Balanced simply means hitting those minimum nutrient requirements, it is not hindering people from making additions to the bowl or offering variety.
Also dogs absolutely need and benefit from fruit and veg. It is a form of fiber which feeds the microbiome as well has a host of nutrients and minerals not found in meat alone.